expenses_resolve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Decisions survive re-runs', which hints at idempotency or persistence, but it does not explain the side effects of recording a decision, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. For a write operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact: three sentences, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. It front-loads the core action and then explains key parameter semantics. There is no fluff, and every sentence contributes. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers essential usage logic for the disposition and charge_ids. However, it leaves questions about return values, error handling, and the exact meaning of the 'linked' disposition. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent may need more context to call this correctly in all scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to charge_ids ('link reimbursements', empty means not a reimbursement) and clarifies the disposition enum (specifically charge_missing). It does not explicitly describe 'linked' but the context implies it. The description provides meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema definition, covering most parameters adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Record a decision') and a specific resource ('an inbound payment'), which is clear and unambiguous. It also hints at the distinction from sibling tools by focusing on decisions and reimbursements, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like reconcile or expenses_review_queue. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, but not why to choose it over siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on parameter usage: 'Pass charge_ids to link reimbursements', 'Empty charge_ids = not a reimbursement', and 'disposition=charge_missing when it is a repayment but the parent charge(s) are not in the ledger.' This tells an agent when to set specific dispositions, which is valuable. However, it does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reconcile vs expenses_resolve). The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.